Recent Blood test results…
I took too much vitamin D3 and mine was tested at ‘101’ supposedly toxic range…
Which I believe wrecked these numbers below…
* lp-pla2 - 278.03
* remnan lipoprotein - 32
* vldl3 - 13
My Doc freaked out about the pla2 number…
I stopped taking vitamin d3…im going to wait 90 days…and then retest and see what happens to all of those 4 numbers…I can not find anything on the web that discusses excess vit d3 and pla2, etc
anyone run into this before?
thanks
how much d3 were you taking?
Yes, how much?
i had to google lp-pla2, had never heard of it before. But yeah, I guess your number is high.
Twice a week, I was taking 5 caps of D3 Excellence(5000IU)…per poliquin’s protocol…
obviously for me…this was WAY too much…
I wanted to see if anyone had a similiar experience with d3 effecting those other numbers…
I would really question as to whether your 25-OH-VitD level was actually toxic. It is higher than what one aims for, but for example Dr. Michael F. Holick, who is a major figure in Vitamin D research and treatment of patients, considers 100 ng/mL to be the top end, but included in, the healthy range.
Certainly, I hope your matter resolves.
I don’t know of a relation between excessive Vitamin D and these blood results but that does not mean there could not be one.
thanks Bill.
im going to let my vit d3 levels drop…and then retest to see if those other numbers get better…
if not im going to back to taking vit d3 to get myself back in the 50-80ng/mL range…
ps: I have found people on the internet asking the same question I have but no one seems to know the correlation if any…
optimal D3 levels are between 80-120ng/ml your D3 levels are within optimal range , especially for athletic populations. I wouldn’t point to that as any reason for dysregulation of other markers.
if your doctor thinks this is way too high, they are obviously not up on the latest research.
Don’t follow stupid ass protocols. 1000IU/day will cover just about everyone’s basic vitamin D3 needs for bone health and if you want to be liberal 2-4 times that dose will likely be sufficient to confer the additional benefits of the vitamin. The science just doesn’t support having doses of 25000IU at this point, and likely never will.
And on another note, stop self-diagnosing.
[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
Don’t follow stupid ass protocols. 1000IU/day will cover just about everyone’s basic vitamin D3 needs for bone health and if you want to be liberal 2-4 times that dose will likely be sufficient to confer the additional benefits of the vitamin. The science just doesn’t support having doses of 25000IU at this point, and likely never will. [/quote]
maybe I missed it, but who was talking about taking 25000IU?
[quote]gabex wrote:
[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
Don’t follow stupid ass protocols. 1000IU/day will cover just about everyone’s basic vitamin D3 needs for bone health and if you want to be liberal 2-4 times that dose will likely be sufficient to confer the additional benefits of the vitamin. The science just doesn’t support having doses of 25000IU at this point, and likely never will. [/quote]
maybe I missed it, but who was talking about taking 25000IU?[/quote]
If I correctly understood the protocol that was being followed, it was 25,000 IU twice per week. Which is quite different than 25,000 per day.
25,000 IU 2x/week averages to about 7000 IU per day, which is somewhat on the high side and is more than personally I would recommend as a blanket prescription for everyone, but in fact many who test their values find they need 7000 or 8000 IU per day to maintain high range normal levels.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]gabex wrote:
[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
Don’t follow stupid ass protocols. 1000IU/day will cover just about everyone’s basic vitamin D3 needs for bone health and if you want to be liberal 2-4 times that dose will likely be sufficient to confer the additional benefits of the vitamin. The science just doesn’t support having doses of 25000IU at this point, and likely never will. [/quote]
maybe I missed it, but who was talking about taking 25000IU?[/quote]
If I correctly understood the protocol that was being followed, it was 25,000 IU twice per week. Which is quite different than 25,000 per day.
25,000 IU 2x/week averages to about 7000 IU per day, which is somewhat on the high side and is more than personally I would recommend as a blanket prescription for everyone, but in fact many who test their values find they need 7000 or 8000 IU per day to maintain high range normal levels.[/quote]
Bill- that’s exactly what I did “25,000 IU 2x/week averages to about 7000 IU per day” and that got me to the so called toxic range of 101 ng/mL…
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]gabex wrote:
[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
Don’t follow stupid ass protocols. 1000IU/day will cover just about everyone’s basic vitamin D3 needs for bone health and if you want to be liberal 2-4 times that dose will likely be sufficient to confer the additional benefits of the vitamin. The science just doesn’t support having doses of 25000IU at this point, and likely never will. [/quote]
maybe I missed it, but who was talking about taking 25000IU?[/quote]
If I correctly understood the protocol that was being followed, it was 25,000 IU twice per week. Which is quite different than 25,000 per day.
25,000 IU 2x/week averages to about 7000 IU per day, which is somewhat on the high side and is more than personally I would recommend as a blanket prescription for everyone, but in fact many who test their values find they need 7000 or 8000 IU per day to maintain high range normal levels.[/quote]
Gotcha. I was thinking 25000IU/day… and thought WHOA. I take 5000IU a day, but usually only Mon-Fri (typically don’t get vitamins/supps/protein shakes on weekends).
My client reached 95.5 by taking 4,000/day. After just 3 weeks of stopping she dropped all the way to 45.5
Her doctor told her to stop because she was near toxic levels (but ddifferent sources quote different toxicity levels).
Take home note, when in doubt get tested.
So far as I know, the physician claims of “toxicity” at levels such as 100 ng/mL or doses averaging under 10,000 IU per day are based on precisely nothing except assertion. Though 80 ng/mL is indeed considered the preferred upper target level by many who have studied Vitamin D.
If based on anything, these claims might perhaps be on a concept – as this concept is widespread among medical geniuses – that being in the upper 2.5% relative to the average population must be harmful (“it’s outside the ‘normal’ range.”)
If from scientific research, and not all scientific research is sound, the basis I think would have to be one of these: Vitamin D Research | Worst Science on Vitamin D
If anyone does have some sound evidence to share that would be an excellent contribution. I would never claim that just because I don’t know it, it isn’t there somewhere.